Question

While immersed in your book The First Existent, after delving into your thought, the emptiness of the tower of probabilities suddenly became clear to me.
That thin, apologetic theology, based entirely on the probability of claims, and on accepting them as rational and nothing more.
I support this approach on the philosophical level, and I think it is a sober and realistic approach. But what does it leave us with?
In other words, if belief in the very existence of God is based on non-necessary arguments, whose acceptance depends on their degree of probability, and the question of His involvement in the world is also based on probabilistic claims, which in turn are based on the probability of the first claims, and the question of God’s revelation at Mount Sinai is likewise based on the probability of the tradition, which in turn is based on the probability of the claims about God’s existence and His involvement in the world, and the truth of the other parts of the Torah and of the Oral Torah as well (as opposed to Christianity, for example), then we are left with a void of probability upon probability upon probability, which does not allow one to take a stand and form a coherent worldview and way of life.
How can I live my life as one grounded in the existence of God, and in my religious commitment to Him, if all I have is such a tower of probabilities? 
This is not merely about taking a position under conditions of uncertainty. It is about taking such a specific position, in the face of mountains of claims that rest on my willingness to accept them as probable.
Is there any way at all to bridge the instability of the tower of probabilities and such a demanding specific religious commitment, both practical and cognitive?